Again, a close study of its contents, as of the contents of all the
Irish historic tales, proves that in its present form, whenever
that form was superadded, it is but a representation in prose of a
pre-existing metrical original. Under this head I have already made
some remarks, which, I shall request the reader to re-peruse [Note:
Pages 23 to 27]
Once more, it deals with a particular event in Irish history, and
with distinct and definite kings, heroes, and bards, who flourished
in the epoch of which it treats. In the synchronisms of Tiherna, in
the metrical chronology of Flann, in all the various historical
compositions produced in various parts of the country, the main
features and leading characters of the Tan-bo-Cooalney suffer no
material change, while the minor divergencies show that the
chronology of the annals and annalistic poems were not drawn from
the tale, but owe their origin to other sources. Moreover, this
epic is but a portion of the great Ultonian or Red Branch cycle,
all the parts of which pre-suppose and support one another; and
that cycle is itself a portion of the history of Ireland, and
pre-supposes other preceding and succeeding cyles, preceding and
succeeding kings. The event of which this epic treats occurred at
the time of the Incarnation, and its characters are the leading
Irish kings and warriors of that date. Such is the Tan-bo-Cooalney.
This being so, how have the English literary classes recognised, or
how treated, our claim to the possession of an antique literature
of peculiar historical interest, and by reason of that antiquity, a
matter of concern to all Aryan nations? The conquest has not more
constituted the English Parliament guardian and trustee of Ireland,
for purposes of legislation and government, than it has vested the
welfare and fame of our literature and antiquities in the hands of
English scholarship.
Pages:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45